W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > March 2008

Re: Possible solutions for ISSUE 97

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:06:40 +0100
Message-ID: <47E26160.5040902@w3.org>
To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
CC: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org


Mark Birbeck wrote:
> Hi Ivan,
> 
> I'm afraid the logic is getting very convoluted!
> 
> I said:
> 
>>  > First, I don't agree that there are many different serialisations
>>  > possible of the same graph.
> 
> You replied:
> 
>> Mark, I think you are wrong on that point.
> 
> but as proof, you simply reasserted the original point:
> 
>>  Note entry #2. This means that if one has two different serializations
>>  with XML Literals (like the ones provided by Ben)...
> 
> Ben didn't give us two different serialisations of an XML literal, he
> just gave us some made-up mark-up. If the abstract graph is in
> exclusive canonicalised form, by what process do we end up with a

Mark,

maybe we should wait for Ben to see what he wanted; I think what he gave 
is two serializations of the same Graph, which included an XML Literal.

More to the point. What I would like to understand (because, frankly, I 
do not) *what* is, in your view, what should appear (1) in a revised 
RDFa syntax document and (2) in the test cases (which was the original 
comment of Johannes)?


Ivan

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Thursday, 20 March 2008 13:07:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:56 UTC